1 / 21

The Next American Voter

Explore the changing dynamics of American party politics based on demographic shifts like fertility rates and immigration patterns. This study analyzes key voter segments, trends in party identification, and the influence of factors like age, race, and location. Gain insights on potential future scenarios regarding partisan composition and the impact of demographics on political outcomes.

mnunez
Download Presentation

The Next American Voter

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The Next American Voter The Political Demography of American Partisanship Eric Kaufmann – Birkbeck College, University of London, e.kaufmann@bbk.ac.uk Anne Goujon & Vegard Skirbekk- IIASA, Austria goujon@iiasa.ac.at

  2. American Political Demography • Kevin Phillips' The Emerging Republican Majority (1969) • Teixeira and Judis, The Emerging Democratic Majority (2004) • ‘Key’ segments change: Blue-collar whites, soccer moms, Latinos, young, old, ‘metro’ • Field dominated by partisans and pundits. Teixeira 2008 an improvement • Still, need a more rigorous demographic approach that accounts for all trends

  3. American Macropartisanship • Party Identification vs. Voting • How Stable is Party Identification?

  4. Theories of Macropartisanship • Green et al. 1998, 2002 – party identification becomes part of self-identity. Affective, durable, resists vicissitudes • Fiorina 1991; Erikson, Mackuen et al. 1998; Achen 2002 – unstable‚ running tally • Moving equilibrium: Meffert, Norpoth et al. 2001 • Our method compatible with either stable or moving equilibrium theories

  5. Why Demography? • Demography the most predictable of the social sciences. Electorate of 2026 is alive today • Plea from APSA presidents and foreign policy community to incorporate demography • Not futurology: multivariate models posit a universal predictive model y=f(x1, x2...). • But what happens between now and equilibrium?: Demographic models can predict at a point in time by accounting for current composition, age structure, fertility, migration

  6. Fixed, Base Parameters • Largely drawn from GSS 2000-6 • Two-Party Population at start year, by sex, 5-yr bands. Independents held to 15 pc, excluded. • Partisanship transmitted from parents to children. Neither mother, father, Democrat or Republican advantaged in transmission

  7. Parameters Which Could Change • Unlike base population, these could change, so we need to develop an expected scenario and alternatives • Net immigration by party id (by age, sex) • Children per woman by party id • Mortality assumed the same

  8. Immigration • 1.2m per year (many regularized illegals) • Immigrant partisanship = ‘Other Race’ party id • Flow reduced to 863k due to 28 pc of ‘other race’ with no party id

  9. Fertility: A Shift to the Republicans • 1972-84, Democratic Advantage: 2.85 to 2.59 among 40-59 women • 2001-6 Even: 2.39 Democrat v 2.38 Republican for 40-59 women • 2001-6 Republican Edge Among women over 17: 4 % • Why?: Lower-status v. Upper-status whites, second demographic transition. • Possible Scenario: growing Republican advantage: (1.8 v. 1.4 in 2043)

  10. Location of states with respect to the total fertility rate (TFR) in 2002 and the index of fertility postponement in 2002: non-Hispanic white women Source: Lesthaeghe and Neidert 2005

  11. Which Will Win?: Fertility vs. Immigration • ‘Liberals have a big baby problem: They're not having enough of them, they haven't for a long time, and their pool of potential new voters is suffering as a result'. (Brooks 2006) • 'In Seattle,' adds Longman, 'there are nearly 45% more dogs than children. In Salt Lake City, there are nearly 19% more kids than dogs.' (Longman 2006)

  12. How Important is Demography? • Korey and Lascher (2006): doubling of non-white electorate during 1990-2001 in California, but only 3-point shift to Democrats • Here we find just 2.4-point shift to Democrats despite growth of minorities from 30 to 50 percent of the total • Partly because younger minority voters less Democratic than elders (an assimilation/upward mobility effect) • Age structure has locked in growing diversity, but stable partisanship

  13. Conclusion • Partisanship stable, no dramatic shift to Democrats. Much less change in partisan composition than racial composition • Still, we expect 2.4-point shift to Democrats between 2003 and 2043. Most of this is due to immigration • Reduced immigration will affect this projection • Not enough of a shift to lead to a natural party of government • Republicans could gain from growing fertility advantage, but only after 2050

  14. The Next American Voter The Political Demography of American Partisanship Eric Kaufmann – Birkbeck College, University of London, e.kaufmann@bbk.ac.uk Anne Goujon & Vegard Skirbekk- IIASA, Austria goujon@iiasa.ac.at

  15. Partisanship and the Vote • Consistently a leading, if not the leading predictor • Lag effect: previous immigrants naturalize and their children are more partisan, so immigration matters more; new immigrants (whom we assume become partisans) vote at lower rates, so immigration matters less • I.e. Nevada: Hispanics are 20 percent of population but just 10 percent of voters. • Why?: Citizenship, Registration, Participation

  16. Partisan Age Structure 2003 (GSS 2000-2006) • Democrats more female, but only slightly younger

  17. Partisan Age Structures in 2043 (Expected)

More Related